Valesca Lima argues that Irish local authorities tend to treat public participation as a formal administrative requirement. However, by moving beyond performative box-ticking and toward genuine co-design, we can bridge the trust gap. True engagement doesn't just legitimise decisions; it sparks the local innovation our cities desperately need
Local democracy is where we most tangibly meet the state. Decisions on housing, transport, and public spaces shape our lives more than national laws. Yet, across Europe, this is where democratic frustration is highest. While opportunities to participate exist, many citizens find them technocratic and inconsequential.
Ireland offers a revealing case. Instruments such as Local Economic and Community Plans (LECPs) and statutory public consultations are designed to embed participation into local decision-making. They are supported by Public Participation Networks (PPNs), which aimed to give community groups a direct seat at the table. PPNs have a more consultative than influential role in policy-making.
In practice, however, this participatory design is underutilised and often exposes a growing gap between participatory ambitions and lived democratic experience, especially at the local level. This tension speaks directly to broader processes of democratic transformation: participation is expanding procedurally, while trust, influence and inclusivity remain fragile.
Research on participatory governance shows consistently that simply creating participatory forums does not guarantee democratic impact. This reflects what Luca Verzichelli describes in his foundational post in this series as a weakening representative ecology; we cannot study the locus of representation without considering the 'how' and the 'between-whom'. In Ireland, when consultations are spare parts rather than central to the democratic engine, this affects the entire participatory system.
Recent studies on participation in local governance find that while consultation mechanisms have grown over time, they frequently remain weakly connected to decision-making. Citizens are invited to comment and react to new proposals, but rarely to co-decide. Participation often becomes an administrative step rather than a political relationship.
Local governance consultation mechanisms remain weakly connected to decision-making. Citizens are rarely invited to co-decide
We see this in many Irish local authorities. The purpose of LECPs, for example, is to align economic development with community priorities through stakeholder engagement. Yet consultation often occurs late in the process, after external consultants have already established and mediated strategic direction. Consultation gathers, summarises, and sometimes acknowledges community input, but final outcomes don't necessarily reflect the relationship between citizens' participation and their impact on policy design.
As a result, participation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. Citizens are present, but their influence is opaque. Over time, this can deepen democratic fatigue. People find it hard to see that their participation will in fact change things for the better.
But public consultations are not only a tool for democratic legitimacy; they can also generate innovative ideas that enrich policymaking. Citizens can bring practical, context-sensitive insights that professional planners or administrators might overlook, from creative solutions to traffic congestion to proposals for sustainable housing design.
In Ireland, public consultations have recently taken place on policy and planning developments. The results show communities suggesting locally tailored initiatives for renewable energy, social inclusion, and active transport infrastructure.
When local authorities integrate these contributions, policy outcomes become more responsive, resilient, and aligned with lived experience. Beyond their immediate impact, such practices signal that participation is consequential: citizens see that their knowledge shapes decisions, which fosters trust, encourages continued engagement, and strengthens the experimental capacity of local democracy.
Nowhere are these dynamics more visible than in debates over Ireland’s built environment. Housing shortages, slow infrastructure projects such a new Metrolink line, and contested redevelopment projects have turned planning into a flashpoint for democratic discontent. Public consultations are routine in mandatory and voluntary models. Yet communities frequently report feeling surprised, marginalised, or unheard when final decisions emerge.
What is at stake here is not simply planning efficiency, but democratic legitimacy. When residents encounter consultation processes that feel extractive, like asking for views without redistributing power, trust is going to erode. People begin to see participation not as a right, but as a performance.
When residents encounter consultation processes that feel extractive, trust is going to erode
Crucially, this is not just a failure of communication. It reflects a deeper issue identified in participatory research: democratic design often prioritises institutional convenience over lived experience. Consultation documents, timelines, and formats are often structured around administrative needs, rather than around how people actually engage, deliberate, or imagine their communities.
Comparative research and policy analysis increasingly point to the same conclusion: meaningful participation requires earlier, deeper, and more relational forms of engagement.
The Council of Europe’s current priorities report (2021–2026) lists the future of local democracy as a key objective. The report emphasises that if they are to remain democratically credible, local institutions must move beyond information-sharing and towards genuine co-production.
This involves more than expanding participation numerically. It requires rethinking when to involve citizens, how to value their knowledge, and considering whether citizens' contributions shape outcomes. In Ireland, this would mean engaging communities at the agenda-setting stage of LECPs, development plans, and public consultation at local authority level, not merely asking them to react once options are fixed.
Meaningful participation involves engaging communities at the agenda-setting stage, not merely asking them to react once options are fixed
It also requires recognising that participation is affective as well as procedural. When people see themselves reflected in plans – their needs, vulnerabilities, and aspirations taken seriously – democratic trust can begin to rebuild.
In the end, local democracy is not only about proximity. It is about whether people recognise themselves as authors of the places they inhabit and the decisions that shape them. If public consultation continues to feel procedural, despite recent effort to use new digital technologies to increase participation, democratic disengagement will deepen.
My current project, THRIVE (Transforming Housing Policy and Democratic Governance, funded by Research Ireland), is working to help local authorities bridge this gap in Ireland. Done differently, participation grows genuinely consequential, and local democracy may become a site of democratic renewal rather than disappointment and disconnection.
